Advertisement

Guaiacol/β-cyclodextrin for rapid healing of dry socket: antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity, and bone repair—an animal study

  • Patricia Verónica Aulestia-Viera
  • Sávio Morato Lacerda Gontijo
  • Alinne Damásia Martins Gomes
  • Rubén Dario Sinisterra
  • Rodney Garcia Rocha
  • Maria Esperanza Cortés
  • Marinilce Fagundes dos Santos
  • Maria Aparecida BorsattiEmail author
Original Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Dry socket (DS) is one the most common and symptomatic post-extraction complications; however, no consensus on its treatment has been reached. This study aimed to develop a novel dressing material for DS containing the phenolic agent guaiacol and evaluate its biological properties.

Methods

An inclusion complex of guaiacol and β-cyclodextrin (Gu/βcd) was prepared by freeze-drying. Its antibacterial activity over six oral bacteria was analyzed using the microdilution method, and its cytotoxicity in osteoblasts was assessed with the MTT assay. The alveolar healing process induced by Gu/βcd was evaluated histologically after the treatment of DS in rats.

Results

βcd complexation potentiated Gu’s antibacterial effect and reduced its cytotoxicity in osteoblasts. Bone trabeculae were formed in the alveolar apices of rats treated with Gu/βcd by day 7. On day 14, woven bone occupied the apical and middle thirds of the sockets; on day 21, the entire alveolus was filled by newly formed bone, which was in a more advanced stage of repair than the positive control (Alvogyl™).

Conclusion

The improvement in Gu’s biological properties in vitro and the rapid alveolar repair in comparison with Alvogyl™ in vivo demonstrated the benefits of the Gu/βcd complex as a future alternative for the treatment of DS.

Keywords

Antibacterial agent Cytotoxicity Dry socket Guaiacol Oral surgery Animal study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the National Institute of Science and Technology in Nanobiopharmaceutical, Foundation for Supporting Research in the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq), and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).

Funding

This work was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, Brazil) in the form of a postgraduate scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution at which the studies were conducted.

References

  1. 1.
    Faizel S, Thomas S, Yuvaraj V, Prabhu S, Tripathi G (2015) Comparision between neocone, alvogyl and zinc oxide eugenol packing for the treatment of dry socket: a double blind randomised control trial. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 14:312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gbotolorun OM, Dipo-Fagbemi IM, Olojede AO, Ebigwei S, Adetoye JO (2016) Are systemic antibiotics necessary in the prevention of wound healing complications after intra-alveolar dental extraction? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:1658–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taberner-Vallverdu M, Nazir M, Sanchez-Garces MA, Gay-Escoda C (2015) Efficacy of different methods used for dry socket management: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 20:e633–e639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaya GS, Yapici G, Savas Z, Gungormus M (2011) Comparison of alvogyl, SaliCept patch, and low-level laser therapy in the management of alveolar osteitis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:1571–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexander RE (2000) Dental extraction wound management: a case against medicating postextraction sockets. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:538–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kato T, Shirayama K, Tsutsui TW, Tsutsui T (2010) Induction of mRNA expression of osteogenesis-related genes by guaiacol in human dental pulp cells. Odontology 98:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mimura T, Yazaki K, Sawaki K, Ozawa T, Kawaguchi M (2005) Hydroxyl radical scavenging effects of guaiacol used in traditional dental pulp sedation: reaction kinetic study. Biomed Res 26:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ouwehand A, Tiihonen K, Kettunen H, Peuranen S, Schulze H, Rautonen N (2010) In vitro effects of essential oils on potential pathogens and beneficial members of the normal microbiota. Vet Med 55:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitzgerald DJ, Stratford M, Gasson MJ, Narbad A (2005) Structure-function analysis of the vanillin molecule and its antifungal properties. J Agric Food Chem 53:1769–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobayashi M, Tsutsui TW, Kobayashi T, Ohno M, Higo Y, Inaba T, Tsutsui T (2013) Sensitivity of human dental pulp cells to eighteen chemical agents used for endodontic treatments in dentistry. Odontology 101:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang Y-C, Tai K-W, Huang F-M, Huang M-F (2000) Cytotoxic and nongenotoxic effects of phenolic compounds in human pulp cell cultures. J Endod 26:440–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kayaci F, Ertas Y, Uyar T (2013) Enhanced thermal stability of eugenol by cyclodextrin inclusion complex encapsulated in electrospun polymeric nanofibers. J Agric Food Chem 61:8156–8165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database; CID=460, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/460. Accessed 13 April 2017
  14. 14.
    Teixeira KI, Denadai AM, Sinisterra RD, Cortes ME (2015) Cyclodextrin modulates the cytotoxic effects of chlorhexidine on microrganisms and cells in vitro. Drug Deliv 22:444–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bilia AR, Guccione C, Isacchi B, Righeschi C, Firenzuoli F, Bergonzi MC (2014) Essential oils loaded in nanosystems: a developing strategy for a successful therapeutic approach. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2014:651593Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Divakar S, Maheswaran M (1997) Structural studies on inclusion compounds of β-cyclodextrin with some substituted phenols. J Incl Phenom 27:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song LX, Wang HM, Yang Y, Xu P (2007) Preparation and characterization of two solid supramolecular inclusion complexes of guaiacol with β- and γ-cyclodextrin. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 80:2185–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suarez DF, Consuegra J, Trajano VC, Gontijo SM, Guimaraes PP, Cortes ME, Denadai AL, Sinisterra RD (2014) Structural and thermodynamic characterization of doxycycline/beta-cyclodextrin supramolecular complex and its bacterial membrane interactions. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 118:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schneider HJ, Hacket F, Rüdiger V, Ikeda H (1998) NMR studies of cyclodextrins and cyclodextrin complexes. Chem Rev 98:1755–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kong N, Jiang T, Zhou Z, Fu J (2009) Cytotoxicity of polymerized resin cements on human dental pulp cells in vitro. Dent Mater 25:1371–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (2006) Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard. Seventh Edition. CLSI document M7-A7. 26:14–18Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jullian C, Orosteguis T, Perez-Cruz F, Sanchez P, Mendizabal F, Olea-Azar C (2008) Complexation of morin with three kinds of cyclodextrin. A thermodynamic and reactivity study. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 71:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burt S (2004) Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods--a review. Int J Food Microbiol 94:223–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cortés ME, Sinisterra RD, Avila-Campos MJ, Tortamano N, Rocha RG (2001) The chlorhexidine: beta;-cyclodextrin inclusion compound: preparation, characterization and microbiological evaluation. J Incl Phenom Macrocycl Chem 40:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teixeira KI, Araujo PV, Neves BR, Mahecha GA, Sinisterra RD, Cortes ME (2013) Ultrastructural changes in bacterial membranes induced by nano-assemblies beta-cyclodextrin chlorhexidine: SEM, AFM, and TEM evaluation. Pharm Dev Technol 18:600–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hill LE, Gomes C, Taylor TM (2013) Characterization of beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes containing essential oils (trans-cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, cinnamon bark, and clove bud extracts) for antimicrobial delivery applications. LWT Food Sci Technol 51:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Imperiale JC, Sosnik AD (2015) Cyclodextrin complexes for treatment improvement in infectious diseases. Nanomedicine (London) 10:1621–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Czekanska EM, Stoddart MJ, Richards RG, Hayes JS (2012) In search of an osteoblast cell model for in vitro research. Eur Cell Mater 24:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haghighat A, Bahri Najafi R, Bazvand M, Badrian H, Khalighinejad N, Goroohi H (2012) The effectiveness of GECB pastille in reducing complications of dry socket syndrome. Int J Dent 2012:587461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rasheed A, Kumar CKA, Sravanthi VVNSS (2008) Cyclodextrins as drug carrier molecule: a review. Sci Pharm 76:567–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sofian ZM, Shafee SS, Abdullah JM, Osman H, Razak SA (2014) Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of levodopa and its complex with hydroxypropyl-ss-cyclodextrin (HP-ss-CD) to an astrocyte cell line. Malays J Med Sci 21:6–11Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rajewski RA, Stella VJ (1996) Pharmaceutical applications of cyclodextrins. 2. In vivo drug delivery. J Pharm Sci 85:1142–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    LaRocca TJ, Pathak P, Chiantia S, Toledo A, Silvius JR, Benach JL, London E (2013) Proving lipid rafts exist: membrane domains in the prokaryote Borrelia burgdorferi have the same properties as eukaryotic lipid rafts. PLoS Pathog 9:e1003353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    de Melo Junior EJ, Raposo MJ, Lisboa Neto JA, Diniz MF, Marcelino Junior CA, Sant’Ana AE (2002) Medicinal plants in the healing of dry socket in rats: microbiological and microscopic analysis. Phytomedicine 9:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cardoso CL, Ferreira Junior O, Carvalho PS, Dionisio TJ, Cestari TM, Garlet GP (2011) Experimental dry socket: microscopic and molecular evaluation of two treatment modalities. Acta Cir Bras 26:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodrigues MT, Cardoso CL, Carvalho PS, Cestari TM, Feres M, Garlet GP, Ferreira O Jr (2011) Experimental alveolitis in rats: microbiological, acute phase response and histometric characterization of delayed alveolar healing. J Appl Oral Sci 19:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merzel J, Salmon CR (2008) Growth and the modeling/remodeling of the alveolar bone of the rat incisor. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 291:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vieira AE, Repeke CE, Ferreira Junior Sde B, Colavite PM, Biguetti CC, Oliveira RC, Assis GF, Taga R, Trombone AP, Garlet GP (2015) Intramembranous bone healing process subsequent to tooth extraction in mice: micro-computed tomography, histomorphometric and molecular characterization. PLoS One 10:e0128021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wegenast S (2013) Observe the healing process. Br Dent J 214:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T Ryalat S, H Al-Shayyab M, Marmash A, A Sawair F, H Baqain Z (2011) The effect of Alvogyl TM when used as a post extraction packing. Jordan J Pharm Sci 4:149–153Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Verónica Aulestia-Viera
    • 1
  • Sávio Morato Lacerda Gontijo
    • 2
  • Alinne Damásia Martins Gomes
    • 3
  • Rubén Dario Sinisterra
    • 3
  • Rodney Garcia Rocha
    • 1
  • Maria Esperanza Cortés
    • 2
  • Marinilce Fagundes dos Santos
    • 4
  • Maria Aparecida Borsatti
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Stomatology, Faculty of DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of DentistryFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Exact Sciences InstituteFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Institute of Biomedical SciencesUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations